Jim: I thought about responding to your post point by point. Rather, I will give you a couple of points to ponder:
1. You previously stated that if newton used a public defender that means they are broke. I proved via court docs that not only did newton use a public defender, but still has not paid the $100 to the court for the defender.
2. I can understand the excitement of getting a bid off and on, but isn't that setting expectations a little low after 3-4 years.
3. The SEC's primary focus is on Gendarme, a response to Gendarme's last motion a couple of months ago, still has not been made. Wheels of justice grind slowly, but even you have scratch your head on how newton let 21% of A/S out the door without Gendarme filing SEC docs.
4. As newton noticed high trading activity, don't you think it would have prudent to see if Gendarme had started selling the 2.1 billion shares he sold? If newton new those shares were sold prematurely, why didn't he file suit against Gendarme? Also, the Gendarme filing clearly shows that Gendarme "bought/purchased" the shares.
5. If you/newton contend that Gendarme sold more shares that they bought, why doesn't newton file a suit for issuing illegal shares?
6. If newton supported shareholders, why doesn't he issue real press release to create interest in the investment community?
7. The issue of financials and gagged t/a need not be expanded on.
8. As to what constitutes RCCH, even newton said they were a "developing company" reliant on loans from the controlling shareholder.
9. Do you believe shareholders are entitled to some semblance of info on the acquisition of A-List and turbine company? How much was paid and in what form (cash/stock). Maybe a statement on top line expectations?
10. Also do you believe shareholders are entitled to know what is going on with IWS, the hungarian street light deal, cipc etc.
11. Finally, do you believe shareholders, and for that matter, potential customers should have a email and phone number to call the company?
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
